Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I think that rather than right, you should first of all telephone. However read our customer services guide. Implement the advice there. Then telephone and have a conversation which leads round to the loan and whatever agreement there might have been to repay. Get it recorded. Then write to him and asked him to confirm the telephone conversation. If he confirms it then you are on your way. If he doesn't confirm it or denies it then it becomes even more interesting and I think that you will properly have you more leverage. You say that you believe that you lent the money to the company and that the company has now sold. As long as the company has been sold and not dissolved then the loan to the company is still current and the company debt to you is still current. I think the first senior to do is to get the evidence – and I think you should follow the advice that I have given. The fact that the person has stopped contacting you is extremely troubling. The fact that the company ownership was transferred is even more troubling and so I think that you are dealing with somebody who is trying to be slippery about this – and so your way forward is clearly that you also have to act it in a slippery way. Come back here when you got the evidence and we will help you to the next step
    • Met usually use ANPR and get the timings massively wrong so they will be timed out. they must have used CCTV to watch the vehicle occupants "leave" and this is probably a breach of the GDPR as it wont be one of the specified reasons on their licence to spy on people so will breach protocols 1, 2 , 3 and possibly others in the list of the 8 main protocols of data protection.   It also breached the POFA as the timings are wrong so no keeper liability anyway.   The wording they use refers to the liklihood of the issuing of a NTD and thet never happened so the 56 day limit isnt applicable. My advice? ignore them as they rarely do court because they know they are incompetent
    • sorry, I meant to say UNLESS  so yes my answer reads the wrong way round
    • the terms in the contract will in many cases be unfair and thus you will be entitled to the bonus and there is case law on this. However, it is not a simple matter to resolve as it will have to take into account what the contract says and what the normal practice and expectations are for the bonus scheme. For example, Jhn Lewis pays out to anyone employed there on the relevant date so leave the day before and you lose out becasue it is a partnership and you would no longer be a partner. No schemes that withold bonuses until a certain time of the year MAY have to pay out but if your bonus is for the quarter that your resignation fell in then probably not. If it was for say Oct-Dec then you will ahve fulfilled the requirements of a qualifying period regardless of the contract saying no bonus and would more than likely be successful in a claim to recover such monies. A scheme that has been running for soem time would be part of yoru contract even if there is nothing specific included in your paperwork as it becomes implied as part of the conditions you agreed to when joining to co and staying there.   i know this doesnt give you a definite answer but hopefully makes it a little easier to see how your situation may work out
    • You have a big problem and that is proving the debt. for a debt to be created there must be an agreement that the money will be repaid, how and in what time frame. As far as the law goes you either gifted the money or loaned it in a way where you cant take civil action to recover it because there are no explicit terms. Now the BUSINESS doe owe you £2k and the debt will have passed on to the new owners but you still cant take steps to recover the money other than to ask the new business owners for it. They may deny the debt and you will be impossibly placed to prove it because there is nothing in writing. Proof of money transfer doesnt prove the debt exists nor how it should be repaid even if it did. you will lose a court claim due to the lack of paperwork showing how and when the repayment should take place. Sorry for your predicament but you are where you are
  • Our picks


Retroactive interpretation of the 2014 amendment to EEA immigration regulations?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1660 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts



first post here and apologies if you've seen my post on other forums, but I am in need of help to claim my Permanent residence certificate as a EEA citizen in UK.




the original formulation of article 6(2-3-4) of the The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 were as follows:

“Qualified person”



(2) A person who is no longer working shall not cease to be treated as a worker for the purpose of paragraph (1)(b) if—




(b)he is in duly recorded involuntary unemployment after having been employed in the United Kingdom, provided that he has registered as a jobseeker with the relevant employment office and—


(i)he was employed for one year or more before becoming unemployed;


(ii)he has been unemployed for no more than six months; or


(iii)he can provide evidence that he is seeking employment in the United Kingdom and has a genuine chance of being engaged;




(4) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(a), “jobseeker” means a person who enters the United Kingdom in order to seek employment and can provide evidence that he is seeking employment and has a genuine chance of being engaged.

The amendment introduced 3.12.2013 have modified the interpretation of retained worker status and jobseeker:

“(2A) A person to whom paragraph (2)(ba) applies may only retain worker status for a maximum of six months.”;

(7) A person may not retain the status of a worker pursuant to paragraph (2)(b), or jobseeker pursuant to paragraph (1)(a), for longer than six months unless he can provide compelling evidence that he is continuing to seek employment and has a genuine chance of being engaged.”
For the purpose of counting periods of unemployment as exercising treaty rights matured before 2014 (and only for that period), will the new regulations apply or the old one?


Looking forward to your valuable feedback.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG.


Can you tell us a bit more about the problems you're having please? I myself haven't seen your posts on other forums.



Illegitimi non carborundum




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello and welcome to CAG.


Can you tell us a bit more about the problems you're having please? I myself haven't seen your posts on other forums.



Hi Honeybee,


I posted the same question on an immigration forum but not here on consumeractiongroup .


The problem I have is that I am in the process of applying for a document certifying permanent residence: form EEA (PR).


I'm Italian and I've lived in this country for many years. I never needed to justify my presence in this country, but the 2014 amendment to The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations [i can't post links yet but you can google it] have moved the goalpost from the requirement the way they were before.


In particular, as explained in my first post, they have changed the definition of "retained worker status" and "jobseeker".


This makes things particularly difficult for me, because I have periods of unemployment lasting more than 6 months, all this in the period 1999-2013.


According to the old rules, I would have kept the status of "worker" even after 6 months of unemployment. According to the new rules, the periods after the 6 months don't count as "exercising Treaty Rights". In other words they could potentially break and reset the count of the continuous five years.


In other words I wouldn't be counted as permanent resident in this country.


My question was, and is, if they changed the rules, would these rules apply retrospectively to before 2014 or not?


I have long researched this topic and I haven't found a definite answer. I think it would be unfair they did apply retroactively, as I was in the expectation that I was in this country and exercised my rights as European citizen.


I hope I have clarified the issue but please let me know if more details are needed.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition of a "Worker" under EU law is being employed for at least 12-14 hours a week. “Worker” includes:


  • job seekers
  • those between jobs (for example, women who have ceased employment on becoming pregnant but who intend to resume work at some point after the birth)
  • those undergoing training in their own or another field
  • sick, injured and retired workers



I cannot see these ammendments being retrospective, you cannot be punished with new legislation on things happening in the past you had no direct control over


As a rule, without clear words to the contrary, statutes do not apply to the past. They apply to a future state or circumstance.


I am sure this has, or will be appealed to the ECtHR.


This again is a knee jerk reaction badly thought out Government policy that will be overturned by our own domestic, or european courts. This is in direct violation of Treaty law


My advice would be contact a local law centre that specialises in immigration matters. The advice is free

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...